The Seattle Times front page was one of only a few that included the booking photo taken when Sandusky was processed at the Centre County Correctional Facility in Bellefonte, Pa. (Front page appears courtesy of the Newseum.)

The point is simply that this is a journalism site, and it’s interesting to journalists to compare how various newspapers presented the story (or didn’t, in some cases). Unlike those posting here, not all of us have agendas. And we can make our own conclusions.

As for Robert Knilands’ comment — we all have learned to ignore him.

http://profiles.google.com/wenalway Robert Knilands

Actually, this is what passes for analysis in the journalism world today. They post dollar-sized images of the front pages and then, without reading a word of text, they judge how “effectively” the newspapers covered the event.

It’s tragicomic. I’ve laughed about it for a while, but sadly there are people who place credibility on that type of analysis.

Yet another reason why journalism has failed as a profession.

http://twitter.com/rschallom Rachel Schallom

The L.A. Times has two fronts because of different press run times. It was on the cover of the late front, which does not appear on Newseum.

Anonymous

Well, the point is to point out the subtleties and shades of meaning. Note how one paper notes that Sandusky was found guilty, and that another notes that a guilty verdict was found. Also, many of the papers noted the jury’s finding Sandusky guilty. Further, the more traditional papers ran traditional headlines, while the sleazy tabs, they were more sensational with it. They went that route.

Also, yes, the LA Times was “one of the only” ones that didn’t put the story on P1. “One of the only.”

Can you imagine the person putting this post together, assembling all those images and everything, all the while enthusiastically thinking, “When I get done with this, there’s going to be a post with a lot of front pages in it having to do with Sandusky’s guilty verdict!” Consider further that this person is *in charge* and makes *personnel decisions.*

Anonymous

Hmm. I have to ask “what’s the point of this post?” Looks to me like the editors of the LA Times felt that other stories were of greater relevance where they live, both national and local news.

Despite what presidential politics would lead us to believe, the whole world doesn’t revolve around us here in PA.

Anonymous

So what you’re saying here is that newspapers featured this big story on their front pages. I see. Fascinating.